TA-5-1
ADAPTIVE NEURO-CONTROL
FOR SPACECRAFT ATIlTuDE CONTROL
K. KrishnaKumar
Department of Aerospace Engineering
The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0280, USA.
e-mail:kkrishna@ual vm.ua.edu
Abstract
Spacecraft attitude control is approached as a non-linear
aaaphve control problem and wuro-control, which combines
concepts from artificial neural networks and adaptive
control, is investigated as an alternative to linear control
approaches. Two capabilities of neuro-controllers are
demonstrated using a non-linear model of the Space Station
F d o m . These capabilities are: (a) synthesis of robust non-
linear controllers using neural networks; ancl (b) aciaptively
maWyingneurocontroller characteristics for varying inertia
. .
S
-C
.- main components of the adaptive neuro-
controllers are an identification network and a controller
network. Both these networks are trained using the back-
propagation of error learning paradigm. To ensure
robustness of the neuro-controller, an optimally connected
neural network is synthesized for the identification network.
For the on-line adaptive control problem, a new technique
using a memory filter for error back-propagation is
introduced in place of the back-propagation through time
technique. Performance of the non-linear neuro-controllers
for the three cases listed above are verified using a non-
linear simulation of the Space Station. Results presented
substantiate the feasibiity of using neural networks in robust
non-linear adaptive control of spacecraft.
1. INTRODUCTION
Spacecxaft attitude control has been examined in the
past using several approaches. In general, these approaches
include classical control techniques [1,2] and modem state
space techniques [3-51. With the current interest in an
evolutionaxy approach for constructing a Space Station (SS)
in space, there is a need to examine alternate control
techniques that can accommodate such evolutionary changes.
Techniques reported in referencesrl-51 use linear approaches
for controller designs and make inertia assumptions that are
not valid for most proposed configurations. Also, s m a l l
perturbation assumptions made during linearization will be
violated during nominal operations of the SS.
Another substantial deviation from nominal
parameters will occur during space shuttle docking and
general relative mass motion. These contribute si@icantly
to the changes in moments of inertias and also will introduce
0-7803-1872-2/94/$4.00 0 1994 IEEE
.- ~ .-
transient torque moments. To address some of these
problems, recent studies [6-81 have focussed on other
alternatives. Reference [6] addresses the treatment of
changing inertia. as an adaptive control problem and uses a
linear approach for the same. In reference [7l SS control is
approached as a non-linear control problem using
Lyapunov’s second methood for stability analysis and in
reference [8] a feedback linearhion is used for non-linear
control.
This paper presents an approach using artificial
neural networks (ANN) that will provide both non-hear
control and adaptive control capabilities. In the recent past,
revived interests in the working of neural networks has
brou&t out many new approaches to solving engineering
problems using mathematical networks which mimic the
workings of neural connections in the brain. Neurocontrol
is an application domain of ANN in which ANN concepts
are applied to system identification and control. Artificial
neural networks have been used in many areas of control
problems. In ref- to SS control, references [9]and [lo]
present mass identification approaches using neural networks
and reference [1 11 presents a neuro-control approach using
a linearized pitch degree-of-freedom model and shows the
benefits of using neural networks in adaptive control of SS.
There are several benefits in using neural networks in
adaptwe non-linearcontrol for space applications. These are:
(1) A neuro-controller learns to control a system based on
the input-output coupling that exist. Also, neural networks
have been shown to extract input-output mapping even out
of noisecorrupted data. This implies that a decentralized
controller can be implemented using neuro-controllers with
direct output feedback. Decentralized control, with direct
output feedback, is computationally less demanding and
more suited when using space-quaMed computers that are
limited in their processing power.
(2) The necessity for a learning-type controller for space
applicationsarises chre to the conditions of uncertainty in the
environment of operation and due to unmodeled dynamics.
(3) The possibility of component failure in space structures
establishes the requirement for adaptive-type controllers.
The major objective of this study is to highlight the
1153
advantages m using neuro-controllers for spacecraft attitude
control. The Space Station (SS) is chosen as the ideal
example for demonstrating these advantages. In what
follows, we first present the fundamentals of neuro-control
relevant to this study and outline a procedure for design and
impkmentation of robust, adaptive neurocontrollers. Next,
we present the non-linear S S model used and show the
capabilities of neurocontrol in controlling the pitch attitude
of the SS.These caprabihties are: (a) synthesis of robust non-
liuear concr~llaws using neural networks; and @) adaptively
modifying neuro-controller characteristics using a memory
filter for the back-propagation of error.
2.0 ADAF"IvE NEURO-CONTROL CONCEPTS
Neurocontrol, which combines ANN concepts,
optimal control concepts, and adaptive control concepts, is
relatively recent. Naredra [Ill, Werbos [12,13], Barto et
al. [14], and many others have made significant
contnitions to the current practices of neurocontrol. The
next few sections present the neural network and neuro-
control concepts used in this study.
2.1 Artifcial Neural Networks
The ANN structure used in this study is shown in
Figure 1. It is assumed that every neuron takes connections
from any or a l l neurons to the left of it. The degree of
connectivity depends on the number of connections within
the structure. A fully forwardconnected network takes all
possible connections. This ANN configuration provides a
network that can have up to "h" (number of hidden neurons)
hidden layers. It is known that as the number of layers
increases the accuracy of the mapping increases. One
drawback of increasing the number of layers is that the
number of parameters to be optimized increases and thus
affects the generalization capabilities of the networks (see
hhelevich et al. [l?). A technique is outlined in reference
15 that optimizes the connectivity pattern as part of the
supervised leaming. This technique has the flexibility to
maintain the desired accuracy as well as reduce the number
of parameters m the network. Also, the network optimization
can potentially have up to 'h" neurons in the first layer. It
has been shown before that this is important for
approximation capabilities of the neural network. As shown
later,tbe opcimauy connected network provides a foundation
for synthesizing robust neurocontrollers.
t modeling. The technique used in this study to arrive at a
U
I
{ Y
Figure 1. Artificial Neural Network Structure
1154
Now, consider the single neuron in the network
st"sh0wnmFigure 1. An individualneuronbas many
inputs depending on the number of connections. Each
connection to the neumn has a weight associated with it.
After the net input is calculated, it is converted into an
activation value through a functional relationship. The
power of ANN lies ultbin this transfer function. Two types
of transfer functions are used in this study. These are:
(a) Sigmoidal function (for all hidden neurons):
@) Ramp Function (for all input and output neurons):
f(x) = ax.
In this study, a is chosen to be 1.0. After
complting the network outplts,an error is calculated for all
outputs by comparing the ANN output to a desired output.
Reference 15 documents the equations necessary for the
implementation and t d g of the ANN.
2.2 Supervised learning using backpropagation (BP)of
error
The most important concept that underlies the ANN
design is the come@of learning from experience. There are
several useful learning paradigms for ANN, but the most
widely used paradigm is the back-propagation (BP)
algorithm. In BP, the ANN learns by repeated exposure to
a set of training examples. The leaming takes place through
a first-order reduction in the output error quantity.
Backpopgation has been successfully used for mapping of
non-linear functions.
2.3 Neuro-control Techniques
Two neuroant1-01 techniques used in this study are
outlined below.
off-linesumised controller synthesis using batch learning
Supervised neurocontrol is s& to the indirect
control used in the adaptive control literature. In traditional
adaptive control, a hear system model is identified and
using this model the control is adapted. Similarly, in
supervised neurocontrol, first the system is copied using a
neural network. This system is called the neuro-model. For
robust control applications, it is important that the NNM is
general enough to accommodate uncertainties in the system
robust NNM is outlined in Reference 15. (Henceforth,
neural networks whose connections axe pruned to provide
robust mapping are referenced as optimallv connected
networks.) Next, the controller weights are tuned using the
back-propagation of error through the neuro-model. Once
again, it is desired to train a NNC to be general enough to
accommodatemodeling errors. The role of the neuro-model
is to relate the output error to the controller error. It should
be noted that the error definition for the model and the
controller are different as shown in Figure 2. The error in
the case of the controller is the error between the actual
system trajectory and a desired trajectory generated by a
reference model.
- -
I, U(K.1)
~ YAK'
S Y m
1 between the desired response and the true response and J is
ii I I
Figure 2. Neurocontrol using supervised learning and
back-propagation (BP)of error.
For training the NNC, either a batch learning
method or BTT can be used. In this study, a batch learning
as outlined in reference 16 is used. In this method, first the
system is subjected to an arbitrary disturbance. A forward
pass is performed for each time step without any
backpropagation of error being allowed; however, the total
error for a time period is collected. During a second
forward pass, the total error from the first pass is
back-propagated for each time step through the NNM and
the NNC. Note that the weighted connections of the NNC
are updated during error backpropagation, whereas NNM
connection weights remain unchanged.
On-line neuro-controller adaotation using a memory filter:
On-line adaptation includes learning utunodeled
system dynamics, persistent system disturbances, and any
other d e s that were not accounted for in the modeling
process. For obvious reasons, batch processing cannot be
used in this situation. On the orher hand, BTT requires the
error information to flow backwards from time step NT to
time NT-1,to NT-2, and so on. This is inconsistent with any
true real-time adaptation. In this paper, we introduce the
concept of a memory filter that in effect produces a time
correlation of the output error for the back-propagation
process. This approach is outlined below.
For on-line adaptive control, the NNM is updated
each time step and the NNC weights are tuned using the
updated NNM. In general, the NNM is updated at a
frequency higher than the NNC updates. For the NNC
daptation, as statecl earlier, BTT is inadequate for real-time
applications. A controller action at the present time
influences the future response of the system. The time
horizon of this response is directly related to the bandwidth
of the system that is being controlled. BTT essentially
correlates this timedependent error characteristics with the
1155
p t control actio-. One approximate, but effective way to
simulate this correlation in real-time is to introduce a
memory filter between the NNM and the error definition (as
shown in Figure 3). The bandwidth of the memory filter is
set less than or equal to the bandwidth of the system. In this
manner, the BP of error "remembers" the past error and
tunes the weights, on-line, proportional to both present and
past errors. In this study, a first order filter of the form
J ~ + ~ = ~ J is~Used.
+ Eh ~ this equation, is the error
the error used to back-propagate through NNM and NNC.
For the memory filter, "a=O" implies a pattern learning and
"a= 1" approximates batch learning.
Figure 3. Neurocontroller training with a memory filter.
3.0 NEURO-CONTROL OF SS
Altitude Control of Space Station is challenging due
to the varying mass properties, which change the system
characteristics continuously. One of the proposed control
arclukcams for the rdtihde corprol of Space Station consists
of an outer loop for the momentum management and an
inner loop for the attitude control (see Figure 4). The
momentum management loop commands the Space Station
anitude and the inner loop controls the Space Station to
achieve the desired trajectory. A combination of model
identification and adaptive control can be utilized for the
inner attitude control loop and the reference trajectory is
generated by the mo"management system. The s d y
presented in this paper, without any loss of generality,
examines only the inner loop pitch attitude control.
ANGLES AND
RATES
I I
I. U SPACE
NNC h'NM
i+r
CONTROL
TORQUE
1 ' INNER LOOP
-
ANCiLLa AND
RATES I
MOMENTUM
OUTER
MAh'ACER
LOOP U
Figure 4. Inner and outer loops for Space Station control.
3.1 Space Station Model
Reference 1 presents the complete non-linear
model of the SS. Assumpt~onsof small rolvyaw attitude
..* .. e,+a,e,=o
generator

ed+a2ed+al
of the form

errors and small products of inertia lead to a simpliiication

of the complete non-linear model. These equations are
useful when there is a ueed for large pitch (83maneuvers
with small roll (e,) and yaw (83 maneuvers. With the above
simplifiications, the spacecraft's pitch angle dynamics
w o n reduces to:
where s,a,, and a, are chosen to give a characteristic
equation associated with the command generator system as
( s + b )(s2+2f,0,s+w,3=0 with A=0.0008; <=0.707;and
w,=af5. The values for 1, 5 , and onwere obtained From
reference 7. The unnmad geoeretor is synmymous with the
outer-loop momentum management presented earlier.

- . i
where €$is the relative pitch angle with respect to the Local-
U
D
Q
.
.
-
-
__-
Descred Output
Opiimally Connected N e i v o r k Output
V d d and Local-Horizontal (LVLH)ecphibrium point, n -2.00 -
is the orbital angular velocity, I,,,, are the principal
of inertia, and 4 is the control torque.

n = 0.0011 d s e ~

I, =5O.28x1O6 slug f?
4= lO.8OxlO6 slug f?
&=58.57~106slugftz 1 w 2.00 3 00 4.3c 5 oc
No. oi Orbits

3 3 off-line Supervised Neuroantroller Synthesis

A "xQ&Olle.r synthesis using a trained neuro-
model is demmdmted in this section. Referring to figure 2,
a n m r o - d l is synthesized first using back-propagation of
error. The structure of the newal network employed for the
ANN modeling consisted of four inputs (bias,8, and its
rate, a n d q at time t), twenty hiddenunits, and two outputs
(e,amdasrateattimet+dt; dt=100 SWDCIS). ~noptima~y
d ANN represedptionusing the technique presented
m h 15 wasdliztdfor deahfyiug the "M.In this
stxdy, theiaplas a d outputs were linearly scaled so that the
inpdoutpt hyperspace becomes a hyper-cube (equal
ma@udes fordlinpds and outputs). An appropriate range
of inplts and outputs are chosen for the scaling. For all
cases inchded m this study, the inputs and outputs were
scaled to fall between -1 and +l. Reasonable deviations
outside this range are acceptable due to the generalization
capabilities of the ANN.
Figure 5 . Comparison of SS and Nemo-model responses
to a random input at the control torque y.
The structure of the neural network employed for
the NNC had two feedback laplts,twelve hidden units, and
a single output. The two inpd units were the pitch angle
error (e,-eJ d its rate and the smgle output representedthe
control signal, y Again, only the pitch degree-of-freedom
was COILsidered for the1- design and verification.
The NNC was trained using batch learning. The total time
used for each batch was 15,000 seconds (approximately
three orbits).
-
, . 10.00 1

The training data for the ANN basically consisted

of rsndam ANN inplts a d the desired response was derived
v 1- Commondea trqectory
Neuro-control trolectory

from the non-linear SS model presented earlier. The error

w a s d d i d as the q " h c error between the ANN outputs
and the corresponding SS model outputs. The computed
error for each time step was back-propagated to update the
weights of the NNM. Figure 5 wmpnx the response of the
SS to that of the trained NNM for a random disturbance
introduced through the control torque, 4.
0
Controller design for the SS involves the training
of a neurocontroller (NNC) to minimize pitch attitude
response re"gfrom any disturbance. The desired output
becomes not the system dynamic response as in model
training, but instead, a desired output magnitude. In this Figure 6. Performance of the neurocontroller for an
study, the desired response was generated by a command initial condition disturbance.

1156
 It was originally believed that it would be necessary
to train the controller for many random excitations to
gene& the controller characteristics. h interesting
dkoveay was ideotified zeganimg the training of a NNC for
control. It WBS onty necessary to train the NNC for a single
distuhance magnitude and duration. Other disturbance
magnitudes and time durations could be controlled without
having to train the NNC for many random combinations.
Concisely, the NNC had "learned" the dynamics of the
model and to control the response to any disturbance. Figure
6 shows the response comparison between the neuro-
controller and the c o d e d output for an initial condition
disturbance.
connected networks, were tested for their robustness to
uzlcertaioees inthemoment of iner&ia of the pitch axis of the
SS. Figures 7 and 8 SUrmDarize the tracking error
performances and control energy utilized for control,
respectively. It is interesting to note that the optimally
COIlDected network outperforms the fully connected network.
Also, beyond 15 % inertia variation, the controller
performances are unacceptable. This is where we need to
adapt the NNM and the NNC to effectively realize an
adapwe controuer. Figures 7 and 8 also present dah for the
adaptive controller perfonnance for the varying inertia
characteristics. The adapive control problem is discussed
next.

600.00 13.00

j dYVIWWAdoptrve neu-a-control v
--_
d -3

'="-1300 '
:
.
/' - Commended trajectory
Non-adoptive neuro-contro;
Adaptive neuro-control

E -30 03 '
U

0
'

. 0
No. of Oroits
0
i
0

Figure 7. Robustness verification: squared tracking error

for (radian) and 8, ( d s e c ) summed over 15,000
Seconds.

_-- - i
2 -60.00 1
e
- Non odopt ive neuro-con! rol
Adoptive neuro-control

0"c -a0 oo
OOC
3
*
0.50 1.00 1.50 2.30 2.50 3.00 3.53 2.00
No. of Orbiis
IO
2ercent Voriciion in Pitch Inertia

Figure 9. Performance comparison between adaptive and

Figure 8. Robustness verification: squared control effort
(4, ft-lb)summed over 15,000seconds.
3.3 Robustness of the Neuro-controller
In this phase of the study, the claim that the
robustness of the neuro-controller improves if opfimally
connected networks are used is verified. Two systems, one
with fully connected networks a d the other with optimally
non-adaptive neuro-control: (a) pitch angle response; and
(b) control torque response.
3.4 Adaptive Neuro-control of SS
For de"g the adapting capability of neuro-
controllers, the pitch axis moment of inertia of the SS was
reduced by 20 A. The adaptation of NNM and NNC were
carried out slsluitaneously (i.e., the weights of both NNM
and NNC were adapted simultaueously each time step) for
the same initial condition disturbance used in the previous

1157
case. For the BP of error, a first order memory filter is
introduced between the NNM and the error as shown in
Figure 3. For the first order filter, a time constant of lo00
seconds was used in this study. During the NNC weight
updates, NNM connection weights remain unchanged.
Figures 9a and 9b show controlled responses using adaptwe
a d " - a d a p e -trol. Although the pitch response
looks identical, the controller response (uJ for the non-
adaptive case is unacceptable. For adaptive neuro-control,
the contml response initially starts out oscillatory and 8s
adaptation progresses, the control response improves
dramatically.
4. CONCLUSIONS
This study demonstrated the applications of neuro-
wotrol to adapve non-Iinear control of Space Station. Two
capabilities of neuro-controllers were demonstrated using a
non-hear model of the Phase I Space Station Freedom.
These capabilities are: (a) synthesis of robust non-linear
control laws using neural networks; and (b) adaptively
"gneurocontrollercharacteristics for varying inertia
characteristics using a memory filter.
The "-controller techniques presented seem to
be robust based on the successful results obtained using
straight forward applications of these techniques. To build
upon the ideas preseded, "-controllers for the three-axis
w e neuro-controller synthesis is currently in progress.
This study examined decentralized neuro-control to
demoostrate the leaming and adaptation capabilities of ANN
based on direct ouput fedback. For space applications, the
fixed software/hardware environment provided by ANN
synthesis makes it easy to mod@ the controller
characteristics from a remote site, if there is a need. Any
other controller design could easily be copied using ANN
a d can take advantage of having a fixed softwarefbardware
structure for the neuro-controller.
Further research in this area needs to examine the
stabllay and performance robustness of these techniques.
Specifically, it will be interesting to examine the theoretical
aspects of the optimally connected networks in providing
robust control capabilities. Also, the feasibility of using the
"oxy fiber concept for dynamic systems with high modal
densities need to be examined.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This material is based upon work partly supported
by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. ECS-
9113283.
REFERENCES
[ I ] Wie, B., Byun, K. W., Wamn, W., Geller, D., Long, D., and
Sunkel, J. W., 'New Approach to AttitudelMomentumControl of the
Space Station,' Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol 12,
no. 5 , pp. 714-722, 1989.
121 Yeichner, J., Lee, J., and Barmws, O., 'Overview of Space
Station Attitude Control Syacm with Active Momentum
Management,' AAS paper 88-044, February 1988.
1158
[3] Byun, K. W.,Wie, B., Geller, D., and Sunkel, J. W., 'Robust
H-Infinity Control Design for the Space Station with Structured
Parameter Uncertainty,' presented at ALAA Guidance, Navigation and
Control Conference, Portland, OR, August 2@22, 1990.
141 Balas, G., hckard, A., and Harduvel, J., 'Applications of
Mu-Synthesis Techniques to Momentum Management and AtLitude
Cor~mlof the Space Station,' presented at AlAA Guidance, Navigation
and Control Conference, January 1991.
[SI parks, Akzander G, and Sunkel, J. W., "Adaptive Anitude Control
aod Momentum MIM~CUIC~I for Large-Angle Spacecraft Maneuvers, "
Jouranl of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. ISr, no. 4, July -
August 1992.
[6] Vadali, S. R. and H.S. Oh, "Space Station Attitude Control and
M o m e m " Management: A nonlincar Look,' Journal of Guidance,
Control, and Dynamics, May-June 1992.
[7] Bossart, Theodore C. and Singh, Sahjendra N., "Invertibility of
Map, Zero Dynamics and Nonlinear Control of Space Station,' AIAA-
91-2663-CP.
[8] Parlos, A. G., Atiya, .". F., and Sunkel, I. W., 'Parameter
Estimation in Space Systems using Recumnt Neural Networks,' paper
no. 91-2716, AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference,
August 199I .
[9] Chipman, R., Lam, Q., and Sunkel, J. W., 'Mass Property
Identification: A Comparison Between Extended Kalman Filter and
Neurof3ter Approach,' paper no. 91-2664. AIAA Guidance,
Navigation, and Control Conference, August 1991.
[lo] Kumar, R. R., Seywald, H,Dcshpande, S. M., and Rahman, Z.,
'Artificial Nwral Networks in Space Station Optimal Attitude Control, "
prrsentcd at the World Space Congress, Washington, DC,Aug 28-Sep
5,1992.
[ I l l Narendra, K. S., "Adaptive Control Using Neural Networks".
Neural Networks for ControUeditcd by W. Thomas Miller IJI, Richard
S. Sunon, and Paul J. Werbos. MTT Press, p. 287, Cambridge, MA,
1990.
(121 Werbos, Paul J. "Rack-propagationThrough Time:What It Does
and How To Do It,.' Proceedings of the EEE, August, 1990.
[13] Werbos, P. J. 'A Menu of Designs for Reinfo"t Learning
Over Ti,' Neural Networks for Control, edited by W. Thomas Miller
111, Richard S. Sumn, and Paul J. Werbos. MIT Ress, p. 67,
Cambridge, MA, 1990.
[14] Barto, A. G., Sumn, R. S., and Anderson, C. W. 'Neuron-like
Adaptive elemelll~that can solve difficult control problems", IEEE
Trans, SMC., SMC-13, p. 834-846, 1983.
[15] KrishnaKumar, K., 'Optimization of the neural net connectivity
pancm using a back-propagation algorithm," Journal of
Neumomputing, 1993.
[I61 Qin, Si-Zhao, Su, Hong-Te, McAvoy, Thomas J., "Comparison
of Four Neural Net Learning Methods for Dynamic System
Identification', IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, Vol. 3, No.
1, pp. 122-130, January, 1992.
[I71 V. V. Anshelevich et al., On the ability of neural networks to
perform generalimion by induction, Biological Cybernetics 61, 125-
128, 1989.